Search

COVID-19 pandemic puts an enormous strain on health care systems worldwide and may have a detrimental effect on prevention, treatment and outcomes of tuberculosis (TB), viral hepatitis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, whose ending is part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We conducted a systematic review of scientific and grey literature in order to collect wide-ranging evidence with emphasis on quantification of the projected and actual indirect impacts of COVID-19 on the four infectious diseases with a global focus. We followed PRISMA guidelines and the protocol registered for malaria (CRD42021234974). We searched PubMed, Scopus, preView (last search: January 13, 2021) and websites of main (medical) societies and leading NGOs related to each of the four considered infectious diseases. From modelling studies, we identified the most impactful disruptions; from surveys and other quantitative studies (based e.g. on surveillance or program data), we assessed the actual size of the disruptions. The identified modelling studies warned about under-diagnosis (TB), anti-retroviral therapy interruption/decrease in viral load suppression (HIV), disruptions of insecticide-treated nets (ITN) distribution and access to effective treatment (malaria), and treatment delays and vaccination interruptions (viral hepatitis). The reported disruptions were very heterogeneous both between and within countries. If observed at several points in time, the initial drops (partly dramatic, e.g. TB notifications/cases, or HIV testing volumes decreased up to -80%) were followed by a gradual recovery. However, the often-missing assessment of the changes against the usual pre-pandemic fluctuations hampered the interpretation of less severe ones. Given the recurring waves of the pandemic and the unknown mid- to long-term effects of adaptation and normalisation, the real consequences for the fight against leading infectious diseases will only manifest over the coming years.

Background Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is responsible for inflammatory liver disease and can cause severe health problems. Because the seroprevalence of HEV varies within different population groups and between regions of the continent, we conducted a systematic review on the topic in order to provide evidence for targeted prevention strategies. Methods We performed a systematic review in PubMed, SCIELO, LILACS, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library and included reports up to 25 May 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020173934). We assessed the risk of bias, publication bias, and heterogeneity between studies and conducted a random-effect meta-analysis for proportions using a (binomial-normal) generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) fitted by Maximum Likelihood (ML). We also reported other characteristics like genotype and risk factors. Results Of 1212 identified records, 142 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis and 132 in the quantitative analysis. Our random-effects GLMM pooled overall estimate for past infection (IgG) was 7.7% (95% CI 6.4%–9.2%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 97%). We found higher seroprevalence in certain population groups, for example in people with pig related exposure for IgG (ranges from 6.2%–28% and pooled estimate of 13.8%, 95% CI: 7.6%–23.6%), or with diagnosed or suspected acute viral hepatitis for IgM (ranges from 0.3%–23.9% and pooled estimate of 5.5%, 95% CI: 2.0%–14.1%). Increasing age, contact with pigs and meat products, and low socioeconomic conditions are the main risk factors for HEV infection. Genotype 1 and 3 were documented across the region. Conclusion HEV seroprevalence estimates demonstrated high variability within the Americas. There are population groups with higher seroprevalence and reported risk factors for HEV infection that need to be prioritized for further research. Due to human transmission and zoonotic infections in the region, preventive strategies should include water sanitation, occupational health, and food safety.

There is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients.To evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all- cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies.PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016.Studies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported.All abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail.Our search strategy retrieved 608 abstracts. After exclusion of unsuitable studies, 36 papers with a total patient number of 47282 were included in our analysis. All-cause mortality was significantly associated with increasing age (HR 1.41, CI 1.29-1.53), left ventricular function (LVEF; HR 1.21, CI 1.14-1.29), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; HR 1.37, CI 1.14-1.66) and co-morbidities such as impaired renal function (HR 2.30, CI 1.97-2.69). Although, younger age (HR 0.96, CI 0.85-1.09), impaired LVEF (HR 1.26, CI 0.89-1.78) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 2.22, CI 0.83-5.93) were associated with a higher risk of appropriate shocks, none of these factors reached statistical significance.Individual patient data were not available for most studies.In this meta-analysis of contemporary clinical studies, all-cause mortality is predicted by a variety of clinical characteristics including LVEF. On the other hand, the risk of appropriate shocks might be associated with impaired LVEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective studies are required to verify risk factors for appropriate shocks other than LVEF to help select appropriate patients for primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.